The Left's non-stop temper tantrum since Trump's election win is revealing an ugly underbelly of the Democratic Party - think Rosie O'Donnell mud-wrestling with a pig - where a rogues’ gallery of provocateurs aims to delegitimize conservative rule.

First, some necessary background: for 15 uninterrupted years of US military escapades abroad, eight of those years on Obama's watch, the Liberal Left could not be awakened from its somnambulist slumber, not even to hold a meaningful antiwar protest in the spirit of their Vietnam-era forebears.

University students, for example, no longer concerned about conscription since the US military became a professional fighting force in 1973, rarely speak out against the plight of foreign civilians trapped in US-made wars – America’s most lucrative export industry bar none. Sadly and tellingly, these demonstration dropouts would be at pains to name a single modern anti-war song to match the hundreds of comparable tracks heard around the nation during the Vietnam War.

For eight carefree years under Obama’s tedious tutelage, these precious snowflakes threw their collective damp mass behind radical cultural experiments, like legalizing marijuana, institutionalizing same-sex marriages and opening the door to transgender bathrooms from sea to shining sea. America’s Founding Fathers must have been watching over these solemn, patriotic endeavors in God's Country with tremendous pride and equanimity.

However, when a Republican real estate mogul named Trump crashed the impossible party, Liberals hit the streets running and screaming. Suddenly, the Left had found common cause to get out of the house and smash stuff, as they did when Milo Yiannopoulos, a right-leaning editor at Breitbart News, was forced to cancel an appearance at UC-Berkeley - ironically the home of the Free Speech Movement - after protesters broke campus windows, burned trees and hurled projectiles at police.

The underlining message from these social justice warriors is that Liberals love the idea of other individuals freely expressing their thoughts, but only if those thoughts support the basis of their own thoughts. I may be mistaken, but that sounds disturbingly close to the rationale behind Nazi book-burning events and other such historical smashups.

Hollywood, stage Left

At the same time American universities were erecting virtual walls around their campuses, not to mention their minds, a dazzling array of Hollywood celebrities (here, here and here), aging and youthful rockers (here, here and here) and painfully overrated comedians (here and here) quickly discovered in Donald Trump a convenient bogeyman for resuscitating flagging careers with dramatic and dim-witted political performances.

First, it should be emphasized that not every Hollywood superstar is against Trump. Many do support his ambitious political vision to "Make America Great Again." That was plain to see by the painful expressions on some of the famous faces in attendance at the 2017 Golden Globe Awards as Meryl Streep delivered an anti–Trump diatribe during her acceptance speech.

The sheer hypocrisy of Streep's lecture was not lost on many listeners in light of America's long string of military misadventures under Obama the Democrat.

As fellow RT contributor Danielle Ryan asked, "Where was Streep as the Nobel Peace Prize winner bombed not one, two or three — but seven different countries? To be fair to Streep, she probably didn’t notice because the “principled press” didn’t seem to either. Funny thing about that too, since Streep and her friends are worried about Trump’s apparent disdain for foreigners: All of the countries bombed by the Obama administration were Muslim countries."

Susan Sarandon, meanwhile, one of those rare Hollywood luminaries who manage to sound intelligent and knowledgeable when elucidating upon politics, bravely spoke her mind in an industry that is notoriously cliquish.

In an interview with The Young Turks, Sarandon said she believed Clinton was more dangerous than Trump because - wait for it - the media failed to adequately cover the less glorious moments from her political past.

“She did not learn from Iraq, and she is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things, and very callously, I don’t know if she is overcompensating or what her trip is,” Sarandon said, adding, “I think we’ll be in Iran in two seconds.”

However, Sarandon's thoughtful views, which were quickly buried, would never be confused as orthodox thinking in the film business. In fact, Hollywood's fiery condemnation of the Republican leader, who won convincingly in a legitimate election, often pushes the boundaries of respectability among people who should really know better.

Robert De Niro and Jay Leno, for example, are just two examples of Hollywood personalities who have actually suggested physical violence against Donald Trump. Considering the sway these two stars enjoy, that is sending a very disturbing public message. Take a moment and conduct a thought experiment and imagine how it would have gone for right-leaning Clint Eastwood, for example, had he said he wanted to punch Barack Obama in the face, as De Niro said he'd like to do to Trump.

However, the best was yet to come, but I am sure even this latest incredible outburst will be bested soon enough. Just this week, the potty-mouthed actress/comedian Sarah Silverman ratcheted up the manic meter several notches when she called for the violent overthrow of the "mad king" in an all-caps Tweet.

WAKE UP & JOIN THE RESISTANCE. ONCE THE MILITARY IS W US FASCISTS GET OVERTHROWN. MAD KING & HIS HANDLERS GO BYE BYE❤❤❤❤ https://t.co/Y2WZbL012A

Silverman's stupid stunt came just days after aging 'material girl' Madonna told a crowd at the Women's March on Washington that she's "thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House".

"It took this horrific moment of darkness to wake us the f**k up," she said. "It seems as though we had all slipped into a false sense of comfort, that justice would prevail and that good would win in the end."

She then proceeded to belt out some bawdy R-rated lyrics that clashed with the atmosphere of the demonstration.

Are these prima donnas so far detached from reality that they believe they are above the law? Like untouchables, they believe they can spew whatever dangerous nonsense that creeps into their muddled minds with total impunity. Personally, I'm betting that one of these misguided madonnas will sooner or later find themselves sporting cuffs for pushing the boundaries of free speech too far, even for them.

It seems a big part of the problem for these publicity-seeking celebrities is that watching the real-life saga of Donald Trump evolve in real-time against the backdrop of their staged, ego-centered personae is simply too painful and, well, real; their only recourse is to strike out against this genuine force of nature, this very real political animal, with every drop of energy left in their waxen figures.

However, many of these deluded personalities could blame their intellectually-challenged political positions on a severely biased media for putting out a 24/7 message of hate and fear against Donald Trump.

Just consider the shocking news piece CNN put out just two days before Trump's inauguration, which asked "who would be in charge if an attack hit the incoming president, vice-president, and Congressional leaders just as the transfer of power is underway."

"According to the Constitution," CNN contributor Brian Todd said, "if the president and vice president are killed or incapacitated, next in line is the House Speaker, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate."

Although such unsavory questions must be given due consideration, to have publicly addressed them at that particular moment, when hushed talk of an assassination attempt hung in the air, came off as simply bizarre. Or worse.

The leading comment in the YouTube comment thread, posted by one Imma Wake, read: "Everybody flag this video for inciting violence."

Similar advice could be given to many Liberals across the political spectrum who are doing a tremendous disservice to American democracy by not giving Donald Trump the same courtesy that was extended to his predecessor on behalf of the voters, not all of whom, by the way, enthusiastically supported Barack Obama's election: the fair chance to govern in the hope of making America a better place.